Court emphasized the need for open trials in criminal cases per S.327 of the Cr.P.C, allowing in-camera proceedings only under justified conditions.

1An unsuccessful petitioner - accused has come up with this petition, challenging the order dated 27-12-2004 in S. C. No. 64/2002, passed by the Fast Track Court - VIII, Sessions, Bangalore City.

2. The brief facts leading to the case are the petitioner has been charge - sheeted for offences punishable under S.376 and S.420 of the I. P. C. The trial of the case was expected to commence on 27-12-2004 and the trial was to be conducted in an in - camera form. At that time, the learned counsel for the petitioner - accused submitted before the Court below to conduct the trial in the Court hall itself in the form of in - camera, excluding the presence of unconcerned, as it is a normal procedure and it is not convenient to hold and conduct trial in the private chamber of the trial Court. But the request of the learned counsel for the petitioner was rejected and the trial Court, directed the petitioner - accused, the counsel for the petitioner and the prosecutor to come to the chamber of the trial Court and rose from the Court. When the case is called in the chamber of the trial Court, the learned counsel for the petitioner - accused submitted an application under S.327 of the Cr.P.C., to conduct the trial in the Court hall itself in the form of in - camera. But that application came to be rejected by the trial Court and passed the impugned order under revision. Hence, this revision petition.

3. I have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondent and perused the records.

4. During the course of the arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the chamber of the trial Court i.e., Fast Track Court - VIII is a small one and it is very difficult to accommodate the Prosecutor, defence counsel, the accused as well as the prosecution witnesses and the staff of the trial Court. Therefore, the request made by the learned counsel for the petitioner - accused came to be rejected on the ground that when the accused is facing charge under S.376 of the I. P. C. and the trial Court is expected to follow the procedure contained in S.327 of the Cr.P.C., and record the evidence of prosecutrix. Therefore, the trial Court was wrong in rejecting the application filed by the petitioner - accused, erroneously, which is illegal and incorrect and call for interference of this Court. In support of all these contentions, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that in - camera means in chambers, in private. A judicial proceeding is said to be heard in - camera either when the hearing is held before the Judge in his private chambers or when all spectators are excluded from the Court room. Further, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that according to the dictionary 'the In - camera proceedings' means trial or hearing held in a place not open to the public such as judges lobby or chambers. 'In chamber' means where a common meaning of word "chambers" is room adjacent to court room in which Judge performs the duties of his office when Court is not in sessions, it also connotes facts that judicial action was taken when Court was not in a sessions. Thus, when Judge performs the judicial act while Court was not in sessions in the matter acted upon, it is said whether act performed in the Judges chambers, the library at his house. Therefore, the Court can record the evidence of the prosecutrix in the open Court, if sufficient accommodation is not available in the chambers of the trial Court. In support of all these